Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Marmara & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 478
The Attorney General's determination to conduct a further inquiry into Marmara's fitness was made in good faith, based on the initial finding of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the primary judge erred in finding otherwise. The District Court was bound to conduct a further fitness hearing.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['fitness to Be Tried' 'mental Health (criminal Procedure) Act 1990 Procedures' 'good Faith in Raising Unfitness' 'remittal of Proceedings']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Attorney General's determination to conduct a further inquiry into Marmara's fitness to be tried was made in good faith" 'Interpretation and application of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) provisions regarding fitness hearings']
Ratio Decidendi
The Attorney General's determination to conduct a further inquiry into Marmara's fitness was made in good faith, based on the initial finding of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the primary judge erred in finding otherwise. The District Court was bound to conduct a further fitness hearing.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Declaration that Dodd DCJ was bound to conduct a further fitness hearing of Marmara in respect of the charged offences.' 'Order that the proceedings be remitted to the District Court to be determined according to law.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment